My Math Forum new type of number

 Algebra Pre-Algebra and Basic Algebra Math Forum

 February 9th, 2019, 09:39 AM #11 Math Team   Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,600 Thanks: 2588 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra How do you intend to do operations with these numbers? Having $x > 1$ and $x < 1$ raises the prospect of having many undefined results, because the two relations give conflicting results. The definitions are immensely vague as well. We don't have any idea of the scale of $x$. Is it "close" to $1$ or is it very large or very small? These things all have a dramatic effect on the qualities of the results of operations involving $x$. Perhaps most importantly, what do you intend to achieve? New numbers that extend different systems work best when they have a specific property that fills a specific need. Thus $i$ is a square root of $-1$: all other properties are derived from this. Infinitesimals are defined to be positive and smaller than all positive reals for a specific purpose which we can then use to discover other of their properties. Last edited by skipjack; February 9th, 2019 at 02:09 PM.
February 9th, 2019, 10:06 AM   #12
Senior Member

Joined: Sep 2016
From: USA

Posts: 559
Thanks: 324

Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Extrazlove My definition is simple X is greater and less than 1 without being equal to 1. So X do not belong to R, and since I used to define it, it does not belong to C either.
You haven't defined anything at all. The expression $x < y$ has a meaning in the real numbers. If suddenly you claim that $y$ isn't a real number, then you have to define what $x < y$ even means. Here is an example:

Suppose I tell you that $x <$ 1997 Honda Accord. What does that mean? So far the answer is "nothing" since $<$ has meaning for real numbers, not cars. It would be my responsibility to explain what that means if I want to use it in some context.

It also seems you believe that $<$ is meaningful on $\mathbb{C}$ so I should point out this is not true. The complex numbers are not a totally ordered field.

Last edited by skipjack; February 9th, 2019 at 02:12 PM.

February 9th, 2019, 10:11 AM   #13
Math Team

Joined: Oct 2011

Posts: 13,978
Thanks: 994

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Extrazlove My definition is simple X is greater and less than 1 without being equal to 1. So X do not belong to R, and since I used to define it, it does not belong to C either.
Are you a student attending math classes?

Last edited by skipjack; February 9th, 2019 at 02:12 PM.

February 9th, 2019, 11:33 AM   #14
Banned Camp

Joined: Feb 2019
From: Casablanca

Posts: 23
Thanks: 2

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie How do you intend to do operations with these numbers? Having $x > 1$ and $x < 1$ raises the prospect of having many undefined results, because the two relations give conflicting results. The definitions are immensely vague as well. We don't have any idea of the scale of $x$. Is it "close" to $1$ or is it very large or very small. These things all have a dramatic effect on the qualities of the results of operations involving $x$. Perhaps most importantly, what do you intend to achieve? New numbers that extend different systems work best when they have a specific property that fills a specific need. Thus $i$ is a square root of $-1$: all other properties are derived from this. Infinitesimals are defined to be positive and smaller than all positive reals for a specific purpose which we can then use to discover other of their properties.
If, for example, I say that X < 1 and X > 1
if X is a real number, then X would be equal 1 and there is no contradiction.

It is the fact to say that X is different from 1 which means that X is not real.

And since I used the <and> to set it, X would not be a complex number.

Last edited by skipjack; February 9th, 2019 at 02:14 PM.

February 9th, 2019, 11:38 AM   #15
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,306
Thanks: 549

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Extrazlove If, for example, I say that X < 1 and X > 1 if X is a real number, then X would be equal 1 and there is no contradiction. It is the fact to say that X is different from 1 which means that X is not real. And since I used the to set it, X would not be a complex number.
And the point of all this is?

Last edited by skipjack; February 9th, 2019 at 02:14 PM.

February 9th, 2019, 11:40 AM   #16
Banned Camp

Joined: Feb 2019
From: Casablanca

Posts: 23
Thanks: 2

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Denis Are you a student attending math classes?
No. I have a bac +5 in automatic; I'm looking for work.
I have always found the strange Dirac impulse and I want to construct such a strange number group.

Last edited by skipjack; February 9th, 2019 at 02:17 PM.

February 9th, 2019, 12:00 PM   #17
Banned Camp

Joined: Feb 2019
From: Casablanca

Posts: 23
Thanks: 2

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JeffM1 And the point of all this is?
have a prize for discovering the numbers and let the mathematicians find what can serve its numbers.

February 9th, 2019, 12:34 PM   #18
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,042
Thanks: 815

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Extrazlove have a prize for discovering the numbers and let the mathematicians find what can serve its numbers.
Anyone with a certain amount of wit can come up with a new number system. There are a lot of them out there. But the effort of proving that they can be useful is on you. No recognition will come unless you find a use for them.

-Dan

 February 9th, 2019, 01:14 PM #19 Banned Camp   Joined: Feb 2019 From: Casablanca Posts: 23 Thanks: 2 Sorry. I can do that, but I do not have the means to do it. I do not even have a computer or a smartphone; I sometimes use my father's smartphone. That's why I'm here so you can do that. I can say that all of its numbers have the same cardinal as the set R. Last edited by skipjack; February 9th, 2019 at 02:19 PM.
 February 9th, 2019, 02:25 PM #20 Global Moderator   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,298 Thanks: 1971 Why can you say that? Thanks from topsquark

 Tags number, type

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post arlobear Advanced Statistics 2 September 29th, 2016 06:19 PM idontknow Number Theory 2 March 28th, 2016 03:36 PM hfsierra Number Theory 1 April 24th, 2015 09:02 AM BenFRayfield Number Theory 0 March 13th, 2014 02:00 PM vicky Calculus 6 March 18th, 2010 02:18 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top